PDA

View Full Version : Who was true #1 out of Connors, Borg, and Vilas in 1977


grafselesfan
05-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Obviously there are 3 guys you could debate as the true #1 of 1977- Connors, Vilas, and Borg. Who do you believe was the true #1 of 1977.

Tennisfan!
05-23-2009, 04:50 AM
another one?????

hoodjem
05-23-2009, 07:28 AM
Endlessly debated.

When you figure it out, let us know.

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:27 PM
I think Vilas probably.

jimbo333
05-23-2009, 12:31 PM
Jimmy Connors:)

Although I'm not going to argue my case as I'm biased, as he is my favourite ever player, so my argument probably won't be seen as credible:)

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:35 PM
Jimmy Connors:)

Although I'm not going to argue my case as I'm biased, as he is my favourite ever player, so my argument probably won't be seen as credible:)

Come on now. Most people who vote on any of these are biased. :)

jimbo333
05-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Come on now. Most people who vote on any of these are biased. :)

Yes, they obviously are:)

Although I really think there is a case for everyone only making comments about players other than their favourites!!!

Now I realise this is never going to happen, but I for one have more respect for comments made by people about players other than their favourites:)

anointedone
05-23-2009, 12:49 PM
Yes, they obviously are:)

Although I really think there is a case for everyone only making comments about players other than their favourites!!!

Now I realise this is never going to happen, but I for one have more respect for comments made by people about players other than their favourites:)

Well I am not a big fan of any of these 3 players I admit and I find it very hard to pick for this year. :) One interesting thing is that it looks like Vilas had Connor's # this year, Borg as usual and always had Vilas's # just like any other year, and Connor's still mostly had Borg's # in 1977 (though it was getting closer). So alot of it came down to who faced who. Vilas was lucky he avoided his ultimate nemisis Borg for some of his big wins that year.

pc1
05-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Is this a vote for who is really the best player or is it a vote for the best record?

grafselesfan
05-23-2009, 01:28 PM
Is this a vote for who is really the best player or is it a vote for the best record?

I meant the player who you think deserved to be ranked #1 for the year, so I would say best record more than neccessarily best player.

CyBorg
05-23-2009, 01:57 PM
I meant the player who you think deserved to be ranked #1 for the year, so I would say best record more than neccessarily best player.

What do you mean by best record? Best W-L record? There is no need for a poll for this. You can find the W-L record yourself.

If we're not talking about the W-L record, then what record is there? Count up the number of grand slam titles? Maybe Roscoe Tanner should be in the poll?

jean pierre
05-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Vilas : 2 Grand Slams (+ 1 final), won 16 tournaments (record), and 46 matches consecutively (record). Is there really a problem about the N°1 in 1977 ????

CyBorg
05-23-2009, 02:35 PM
Thomas Muster - 12 singles titles in 1995; 11 of them on clay.

Guillermo Vilas - 16 titles in 1977, all but 3 on clay (three very minor events on hard/carpet)

Simply counting up titles won suggests that Muster's year in 1995 rivals the great years of Nadal and Federer.

Benhur
05-23-2009, 02:47 PM
What do you mean by best record? Best W-L record? There is no need for a poll for this. You can find the W-L record yourself.


That's pretty meaningless obfuscation. The purpose of the poll is not to show the record, but to find out how people around here interpret it.

Ranking between two players is determined by interpreting their playing record. If not, by what? Spiritual sessions with crystal balls? Ranking systems are nothing but record-interpretation systems. All of them are by necessity arbitrary, in the sense that all measuring systems are arbitrary. And sometimes they seem very blatantly wrong or unfair. 1977 seems the best example of this. So it makes sense to establish a poll for people to express their interpretation of the record. What's wrong with that?

This is Vilas' record:
http://tinyurl.com/po9wkm

And this is Borg's record:
http://tinyurl.com/dyhxcc

CyBorg
05-23-2009, 03:01 PM
That's pretty meaningless obfuscation. The purpose of the poll is not to show the record, but to find out how people around here interpret it.

Actually, the OP's post said nothing about a "record".

I asked for clarification on what the person meant by 'record'. Record could be just data or record could be a win-loss record, meaning a percentage.

However, what do we do with data if it is completely devoid of context? Isn't discussing the record (as in 'raw data') a bit limited?

flying24
05-23-2009, 05:56 PM
Connors was I think.

jimbo333
05-24-2009, 12:30 PM
Connors was I think.

Yes, I agree, Connors:)

And he was ranked no.1 for 77, that must the most important stat when looking at records for the year surely?

CyBorg
05-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Yes, I agree, Connors:)

And he was ranked no.1 for 77, that must the most important stat when looking at records for the year surely?

So, the smiley face besides Connors means you're joking?

jimbo333
05-24-2009, 05:05 PM
So, the smiley face besides Connors means you're joking?

No, the smiley face is like a very small picture of my face, I really do look like this (only slightly less yellow):)

And you never answered my previous questions about your avatar, do you actually look like that?

(Borg was best player in the world 1977)

CyBorg
05-24-2009, 05:22 PM
No, the smiley face is like a very small picture of my face, I really do look like this (only slightly less yellow):)

And you never answered my previous questions about your avatar, do you actually look like that?

(Borg was best player in the world 1977)

That's a complicated question. The philosophical answer to this is that we really cannot know what we look like to others.

jimbo333
05-24-2009, 05:35 PM
That's a complicated question. The philosophical answer to this is that we really cannot know what we look like to others.

Well I'm guessing you are partly French, so I'll just put it down to that:)

flying24
05-25-2009, 12:08 PM
The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

jean pierre
05-25-2009, 12:17 PM
The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

Grand Slams were always more important than the Masters, and Connors didn't win one Grand Slam that year. He can't be the N°1. It's Vilas (2 Grand Slams + 1 Final + 16 tournaments + 46 matches won consecutively)

flying24
05-25-2009, 02:21 PM
Grand Slams were always more important than the Masters, and Connors didn't win one Grand Slam that year. He can't be the N°1. It's Vilas (2 Grand Slams + 1 Final + 16 tournaments + 46 matches won consecutively)

If the Australian and French Opens were 2 of the most relevant 4 events in 1977 than how do you explain there are atleast 8 events that attracted stronger fields that year?

jimbo333
05-25-2009, 03:19 PM
The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

I agree mate:)

AndrewD
05-25-2009, 03:40 PM
Guillermo Vilas - 16 titles in 1977, all but 3 on clay (three very minor events on hard/carpet)

Jimmy Connors won 8 titles in 1977 (no majors)
All wins on hardcourt or carpet.
One final on grass (Wimbledon) and three on clay but they were American clay (including the US Open).
Lost at majors to both Borg and Vilas.
ALL but one of Connors' wins were in the United States (the other was in Australia).
Won the year-end Masters BUT on carpet and in the USA which weakens its value.
No Davis Cup
0-2 against Vilas (once at the US Open and once at the Masters - the latter result showing the weakness of that event)
1-2 against Borg (one being at Wimbledon)

Absolutely NOT #1 in 1977. NOT even in the equation, unless you rig the system.

Vilas won 13 tournaments on clay,
Won two majors (one on European clay and one on American clay - a notable difference).
Won 3 tournaments on carpet and on hard court in the United States.
Won tournaments in South America, North America and Europe
Had one runner-up finish at a major and one his worst surface (grass).
Had a Davis Cup singles record of 6-0. Took Argentina into the semi-finals
2-0 against Connors (see above)
0-3 against Borg

Rightfully #1 for 1977

Borg won 11 tournaments.
Won 5 on clay, one on grass and 5 on carpet and hardcourt.
Won one major (the biggest), no runner-up finishes
Won in the United States and Europe
3-0 against Vilas
2-1 against Connors

Rightfully #2 for 1977, arguably #1 but I think Vilas much more deserving.

Personally, I think Borg was the best player of that year (and every year from 1976-1980) BUT I do believe that Vilas amassed more than enough of the best results to fairly claim the #1 spot.

I also believe that if Connors had been South American he wouldn't have been gifted the #1 ranking in 1977, but that's another issue altogether.

Borgforever
05-25-2009, 03:55 PM
Hey AndrewD -- you forgot to mention Björn as runner-up on carpet at YEC Masters...

jimbo333
05-25-2009, 04:07 PM
Hey AndrewD - if you read your post above, it reads like you are anti-American, are you aware of that?

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 07:00 PM
That must have been an exciting time for mens tennis. 3 guys who were each arguably the #1 for the year, Nastase the underachieving but ultra talented clown still lurking, Tanner and his huge serve which nobody could take lightly, a young McEnroe just starting to make some noise, Gerulatis always a potential contender, Panatta another unpedictable talent always a possible spoiler- especialy on clay.

CyBorg
05-25-2009, 07:03 PM
Jimmy Connors won 8 titles in 1977 (no majors)
All wins on hardcourt or carpet.
One final on grass (Wimbledon) and three on clay but they were American clay (including the US Open).
Lost at majors to both Borg and Vilas.
ALL but one of Connors' wins were in the United States (the other was in Australia).
Won the year-end Masters BUT on carpet and in the USA which weakens its value.
No Davis Cup
0-2 against Vilas (once at the US Open and once at the Masters - the latter result showing the weakness of that event)
1-2 against Borg (one being at Wimbledon)

Absolutely NOT #1 in 1977. NOT even in the equation, unless you rig the system.

I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.

The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.

Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.

Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.

Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.

grafselesfan
05-25-2009, 07:05 PM
I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.

The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.

Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.

Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.

Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.

So would your rankings be something like:

1a. Borg
1b. Connors
3. Vilas

CyBorg
05-25-2009, 07:07 PM
So would your rankings be something like:

1a. Borg
1b. Connors
3. Vilas

If I'm to be conservative I would say three-way tie.

If pushed to rank them I would say Borg, then Vilas, then Connors.

I think what's really underrated about Connors in 1977 is the fact that he made all three finals of the "big" events he entered that year. Wimbledon, US Open, Masters.

This is not chopped liver. Two heartbreaking finals losses, but Vilas didn't even come close at Wimbledon - why does he get a free pass for this? That's arguably the biggest of them all.

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 07:10 AM
I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.

The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.

Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.

Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.

Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.

That's certainly the way it appears Sir:)

CyBorg
05-26-2009, 07:13 AM
That's certainly the way it appears Sir:)

CyBorg complements Connors. jimbo springs a boner.

Predictable.

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 07:14 AM
If I'm to be conservative I would say three-way tie.

If pushed to rank them I would say Borg, then Vilas, then Connors.

I think what's really underrated about Connors in 1977 is the fact that he made all three finals of the "big" events he entered that year. Wimbledon, US Open, Masters.

This is not chopped liver. Two heartbreaking finals losses, but Vilas didn't even come close at Wimbledon - why does he get a free pass for this? That's arguably the biggest of them all.

Right so it is indeed very close then:)

What you seem to be saying is that if Connors had won a few more points in one of these 3 finals then he would have moved from No.3 to No.1 on your list for 77? Is it really that close?

If it is, then it has to be a 3 way tie for No.1 that year, end of debate!!!

CyBorg
05-26-2009, 07:15 AM
Right so it is indeed very close then:)

What you seem to be saying is that if Connors had won a few more points in one of these 3 finals then he would have moved from No.3 to No.1 on your list for 77? Is it really that close?

If it is, then it has to be a 3 way tie for No.1 that year, end of debate!!!

I believe I've been sufficiently clear. All you have to do is read what I posted, which you clearly haven't done.

"OMG, CyBorg just suggested that Connors may be a co-#1 for 1977. I now must reconsider what I've said!"

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 07:34 AM
I believe I've been sufficiently clear. All you have to do is read what I posted, which you clearly haven't done.

"OMG, CyBorg just suggested that Connors may be a co-#1 for 1977. I now must reconsider what I've said!"

Beware of those that speak in the third person!!!

I have read, and I agree. All you have to do is read, assimilate and understand what I posted, which you maybe havn't done:)

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 08:09 AM
CyBorg complements Connors. jimbo springs a boner.

Predictable.

I find it hard to understand what you are talking about here.

CyBorg
05-26-2009, 08:14 AM
I find it hard to understand what you are talking about here.

I threw you a curveball and buckled you at the knees. Accept your punishment.

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 08:26 AM
I threw you a curveball and buckled you at the knees. Accept your punishment.

What is a curveball?

CyBorg
05-26-2009, 09:39 AM
What is a curveball?

It's when someone pwns someone else so badly that the person on the receiving end is unable to make sense of what happened.

:)

jimbo333
05-26-2009, 09:53 AM
Like what Connors did to Borg at the US Open in 76 and 78:)

CyBorg
05-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Like what Connors did to Borg at the US Open in 76 and 78:)

Another example of jimbo living vicariously through Connors's accomplishments.

This is funny stuff. I do like you, jimbo - you're a load of laughs.